So as I am reading through some of the recent posts about the recession and students on AFF trying to find the money to get through AFF program I wonder "Why is static line a dying discipline"?

With USPA's ISP (Integrated Student Progression) program designed to get skydivers to A license holder in the same number of jumps I wonder why AFF seems to be the only option these days.

I got my A license with investing less than $800. I went through the static line progression program back in 1997. After the FJC I paid $30 per jump.

After looking at some of the smaller 182 drop zone's here in Indiana I see that on average the Static Line FJC is roughly $160 with subsequent jumps averaging $50.00. That gets a student to the same exact point as the AFF program at a much lower cost. And a student does not have to put down a huge chunk of change at once. Logically I would think a student is more likely to come make 2 or 3 jumps in a weekend (and spend more time at the dz ) for $150 than making a single AFF jump for $200 or more.

So I sit here wondering why it is offered less and less these days? Is it because gone are the days of little 182 dz's and a turbine is no longer a "special" weekend.

Here in OK, it is most definitely NOT a dying method of training. At my home DZ we are training 10 - 20 1st jump students on average a week. It is worthwhile to note that we are very inexpensive, and we do not do tandems. I spent around 1400 all the way to license, and I repeated maybe 8 jumps!

The first sign of the end was when we started putting AFF JM's with 'problem' SL students who could not get their C+P's down. We'd basically move them to a modified level 4, and they'd do much better with the extra time to get stable. This wasn't a big hardship because by that time most of our instructors were rated in both, so they'd just put the 'problem student' out last.

Then we switched to direct bag, which was more reliable but had a few problems. One, it led to really ugly openings; sometimes the slider would be moving down the lines before the canopy was completely clear of the bag. Two, it was too fast to do any sort of a respectable practice pull. You had to be lightning fast to do "arch, reach, feel, pull" before the canopy was open. Three, it was catching people's left arms, since the lines would generally pay out above the student, and if he went backwards at all, his arm would be in the lines - especially if he was reaching above his head for the practice pull.

So we started doing a few static lines as an 'intro' and then moving them to AFF. Gave them experience exiting and under canopy, which was good, then they were moved to an AFF level 2 or 3.

After a little while we realized that the SL was becoming something of a white elephant. It didn't save the student much money (because they'd go right into AFF anyway) and started to get a stigma as the "wimpy" way to start. It faded out after that.

While I don't know much past the basics of static line, I also think that more coaching and experience before getting your license would be safer and more preferable.

In many cases, you end up with the same number of coach jumps and the same number of total jumps when you get your license. The jumps "taken away" by doing static line in the beginning of your progression are frequently (though of course not always) replaced by solo jumps in the AFF progression. So it's quite possible that the static line student actually ends up with more instructor/coach supervision/interaction.

Every freefall at our DZ is a coach jump, once you reach terminal. Our DZ uses and old school method of climbing stairs of altitude, with a specific goal for every jump. There is no "cleared for solo freefall" in the progression. Every jump has an objective. It can be frustrating, but it guarantees that you don't get the students caught in limbo that are cleared for solo freefall, but not licensed to jump with others. I am curious whether it affects the percentage of students that continue in this sport, one way or another.

Oh, and Bill, you are completely right, it is almost impossible to get a clean DRCP. The static-line beats you to deployment pretty much every time.

if you want it all, now, and $$$ is no object than the customer will take the express ride to being a real skydiver. AFF all the way

The turbine DZ's need the cash flow and profit that AFF offers, and wants to provide what their customers think they need.

I'm not sure that Cessna DZ and static line is a thing of the past in all parts of the country. They offer a quality product at a fair price. It's just not a glamerous or fast as AFF. How many video's do you see on line of a static line jump vs a AFF jump

The recession is going to hit all area's of our economy (Except Guns) I think It's just hitting the turbine DZ's harder.

Back in the day static line cessna 180/182 was all there was thats how we learned. It works

I've seen the mega DZ with Turbines, tandems, AFF swimming pool, snack bar, gear store, professional skydivers, video people, packers. If thats what the public think they need so be it.

Different strokes for different folks. Enjoy what you got. Whatever it is, as long as its safe.

My DZO says that AFF gets pushed at turbine dz's because they can drop everybody on one pass. If they had static line progression students they may have to make a pass at 3,500, another at 5,500, another at 7,500, and then the rest at 12,500. All the extra passes kills a lot of time and fuel. At a 182 dz with a good radio operator the static line is much faster and more profitable for the dz than AFF. At Goshen they even had static line videos if there was staff available for it. The dz's are going to push what's more profitable for them than what's cheaper for the students. Do you guys do static line or IAD at Richmond? We had Jim come up to Angola a couple years ago and get us rated for IAD

We do static line at Richmond (as well as AFF) and it is still popular here in the Midwest. I just read a lot on dz.com and wonder why the hell aren't these people choosing to go the slower/cheaper route. Well at the big turbine drop zones they don't offer it anymore for reasons that have all been mentioned here.

Greensburg, IN no longer offers static line (where I started jumping via static line progression).

I have mixed feelings on some of the replies. I am a static line Instructor and have put out approximately 150 static line student. I have seen clean prcp's and have seen many students successfully complete the progression program. I personally think it is a great program - less demanding on the students and gets you to A license regardless. Repeating a level isn't so costly.

It seems to me that a few years ago S/L was dead at a lot of dz's but has started to make a comeback recently. If I could have picked S/L when I was training I would have but the cheapest way for me was tandem to IAD. AFF was WAY too much $$ for my pocket.

S/L seems cheaper for the DZ's that have a 182 sitting around, less instructors to pay, shorter classes and maybe even a better sense of accomplishment from the student?

part of the move away from Static Line was for financial reasons. Once the course was developed a whole "AFF Industry" grew up around it. The certification course to become an AFF I was very expensive and had a relatively low pass rate, so some instructor candidates had to repeat the course. Then the "pre-course courses" popped up and then came the courses to train people to be AFF evaluators. DZO's and candidates spent a lot of time and money getting themselves and their staff qualified to offer and maintain AFF.

The Instructors needed to promote the AFF program to recover their investment and the DZO had to promote it as many had fronted the cost of the courses. So when new skydivers came along the AFF program was pushed over the Static Line program, and it was common to hear phrases like "Static Line only teaches you to fly a parachute" or "If you want to be a real skydiver, AFF is the only option" and yet all of the people that developed the AFF program learned through Static line....

I really believe that the huge upfront costs of AFF have reduced the retention rate of new skydivers and put off a lot of people who would otherwise have gone through training. At 25 jumps you should all have the same knowledge no matter what program you take.

If you look at the dropzone listings on this site there are 265 dropzones in the US listed. Out of those 164 offer static line training or almost 62% In some states all of the DZ's have a SL (or IAD)program in others states most of them do. It seems that SL/IAD training is less common in the warmer and drier states that have larger turbine DZ's.

I think it is still the most cost effective way at small cessna DZ's and just the opposite at the large commercial centers.

Two AFF instructors and one student out of a 182 at 10,000 feet or one instructor and 3 students from 3000?

The experience with S/L can also vary quite a bit even at the same DZ. I ended up having two distinct S/L progressions. My first try I made 14 jumps in about a month. I got to full altitude and hit a plateau. I was having a very hard time learning anything and so I just quit. I never had an instructor follow me out during the first try. I didn't jump at all the next summer. The following year I decided to give it another go. This time around an instructor followed me out on every jump. Gave pointers and in some cases I had video to look at. That guidance and the video debriefs, made all the difference. Haven't looked back since.

With AFF you know you will have an instructor along for the AFF levels. There is more guaranteed in the early stages of AFF in regards to instruction than with S/L.

As a side note, I think you end up learning more and end up being more comfortable in different situations with S/L however.

Example, a static line taught jumper goes to a turbine DZ and laughs a little inside when he hears the AFF students going crazy about exiting at 3,500 feet, when they were exiting at that altitude or even a bit lower from their first jump. Think about how a static line trained jumper/student would act in a emergency situation that requires exiting at 2,500 feet in comparison to an AFF taught jumper/student.

In Goshen they felt that they needed to go higher than normal to justify the extra expense of AFF so they tried to get 11,500. Some days they could get it some days they couldn't, they just climbed until it dropped under 200 ft/min. They had a widebody so it climbed slow to begin with. If the rigs worked out right they could be dropping a second load of static line students by the time we got to jump. I hated doing AFF video, that extra 15 minutes in the plane killed me. I like sid's answer too. I never understood why someone would want to pay $200-$300 for the first 8 jumps, then still do coach jumps for the next 17.

If you look at the dropzone listings on this site there are 265 dropzones in the US listed. Out of those 164 offer static line training or almost 62% In some states all of the DZ's have a SL (or IAD)program in others states most of them do. It seems that SL/IAD training is less common in the warmer and drier states that have larger turbine DZ's.

Thanks for looking up the stats. I wonder though if that is a true representation though. I looked up Skydive Greensburg - my old DZ I used to teach the S/L FJC at. They are listed here as: Aircraft: Super Otter, Grand Caravan, Cessna 206 Training: AFF, S/L, Tandem AAD: Not Required Hook Turns: Allowed USPA Membership: Required

S/L instruction requires instructors that care about the sport than about themselves and their pay. This type of instructor is becoming harder to find as our poor sport is becoming more and more commercialized.

One DZO I know gave up on S/L instruction because his staff was too cool to go dispatch a few S/L students and do a clear and pull after them. They wanted the freefall and the pay the AFF instruction provided.

Don't even get me started on Tandem ....

Oops, changed my mind!

We have 2 training methods that 1. use/require more turbine aircraft support, 2. are oriented toward longer freefalls and "more fun", and 3. generally pay the instructors more, than S/L.

They kind of "gang up" on S/L instruction don't they?

Once a dropzone has a turbine aircraft that they can barely afford (because they have to "keep up with the Jones'" and won't admit it is sucking them dry), it's "all about" the turbine. More tandems, more AFF, (and more freefall video too.)

Although S/L instruction can make them more money if done from more affordable aircraft, it doesn't fit in as well with the turbine aircraft.

Having worked on DZs that offered both for years, I do believe that AFF students are better flyers at 25 jumps than those who go standard progression. Furthermore I think that difference persists to the B licence level. There is value in teaching people to arch properly from the beginning. The immediate feedback helps. The other reason is risk management. The AFF has a much lower fatality rate. The first AFF fatality in the US (with both instructors actually rated) was more than 20 years into the program.

I have a hard time completely agreeing with the first statement. I think with AFF students it really depends on their experiences after they are cleared for solo's. If they just go out and screw around from 7 to 25, what have they really improved on? Is the AFF system setup in such a way to have a better chance of being a better flyer at 25 jumps? Yes. Do students always stay diligent in the task of learning something new on every jump? Not always.

I have a hard time completely agreeing with the first statement. I think with AFF students it really depends on their experiences after they are cleared for solo's. If they just go out and screw around from 7 to 25, what have they really improved on? Is the AFF system setup in such a way to have a better chance of being a better flyer at 25 jumps? Yes. Do students always stay diligent in the task of learning something new on every jump? Not always.

Disclaimer: I know very little.

The point is they are not allowed to get bad habits on the first five minutes of FF. I have spent a lot of time trying to fix knees down positions on jumpers who got into the habit when no one was watching. This was the original justification for 'buddy jumping' which lead to AFF. It is also the big justification for putting students in the tunnel before they even get into an aircraft.

In my very limited experience I have also noticed that most SL students have a great deal of trouble with stability, backsliding, turns, etc. in freefall. But I also think AFF students are more likely to be ignored after they are cleared for freefall. At a smaller DZ, without a huge investment to recoup in the student program, I suspect more attention is paid to the jumper who is cleared for freefall but not yet licensed.

That having been said, everyone learns differently. We had a SL student who made several attempts to make his first jump but could not overcome the open door. He came back and jumped later that year. He had taken AFF at a nearby DZ, finished in one week, and already had his C license!

Having worked on DZs that offered both for years, I do believe that AFF students are better flyers at 25 jumps than those who go standard progression. Furthermore I think that difference persists to the B licence level. There is value in teaching people to arch properly from the beginning. The immediate feedback helps. The other reason is risk management. The AFF has a much lower fatality rate. The first AFF fatality in the US (with both instructors actually rated) was more than 20 years into the program.

Except their canopy flying skills. I believe SL students are better canopy pilots (where the flying part matters most).

Besides, most AFFI's were probably AFF students, that means they get scared getting out low.

Once a dropzone has a turbine aircraft that they can barely afford (because they have to "keep up with the Jones'" and won't admit it is sucking them dry), it's "all about" the turbine. More tandems, more AFF, (and more freefall video too.)

Although S/L instruction can make them more money if done from more affordable aircraft, it doesn't fit in as well with the turbine aircraft.

You know I was talking to my boyfriend about this topic this afternoon. He is an I/E in all three disciplines. The answer really comes down to the turbine. You can't drop static lines from a turbine (safely or economically speaking).

Well, I will still promote the static line program for those who have it available. It is a good solid program and there are those of us instructors who are still eager to share our knowledge and passion for the sport.

had it been more expensive i am not sure if I would have made it financially....well i would not have finished as quick...knowing that every jump after my first $160 investment was only $38 was cake for me...i didnt even think about the money

although i must fill you in on my wonderful home DZ -- a tiny place in northern NY (now in Northern VT) that was a volunteer not for profit club...after i made it to freefall status i was jumping with 50 yr olds with 15000 jumps and 25 yr olds with 400 and everything in between ... and the 'coach jumps' were free ....

so if it werent for S/L i prob would not be where i am today and even more importantly the static line definitley prepares you for LINE TWISTS

i think it should be offered some more because given both options i think people will still take AFF for their own personal comfort reasons...S/L is not for everyone --- hanging from the side of a tiny cessna that looks like its about to go in a nose dive straight to the ground because all that duct tape holding the engine together that is about to break and then some guy is yelling at you from inside the plane and all you can think is what the hell am i doing then 10 seconds after you let go your like 'damn i love this shit!!!'

I was talking to a newly minted AFF I that had attended one of my SL ICC courses last fall, and we discussed this at length.

Here is what we came up with.

SL is simply not as sexy as AFF. Sl usually entails 3 students in a Cessna going to 3500'. Put out 3 low passes, make sure the bags are safe under the pilots seat, and get out for a low h&p. That is if you have the energy(or time),I usually ride the Cessna down and get ready for the next load of sl's. Plus making sure you have someone on the radio that can deal with more than one student canopy in the air at one time.

The pros of the SL progression are that people that went through sl are usually better canopy pilots,can actually spot the a/c, and since sl usually entails multiple passes at a low altitude,the students are much better with spacial awareness in a small a/c, and as such do a much better job of protecting their handles, gear, and other peoples gear in tight quarters because they have had to move around on the floor of the Cessna. Because the sl program starts with 3500' exits, people are much more comfortable exiting at 3500'(or lower).

How many days do you get at your dz where the cloud base is 4k, but below that it is clear and pretty and jumpable. In central and northern Fl we get quite a few. We have had newer jumpers come to the dz from some of the bigger dz's,and want to do their 55 and 35 exits. I love observing the look af stark terror when the door pops open and they reaize they can see their car from altitude. And seeing the confidence level climb when they realize that you CAN safely skydive from below 13.5k. Plus, as instructors, we are afforded the luxury of spending lots of time flying around at 3500 with the door open, and making sure they understand, and have the ability to communicate with the pilot, and know how to properly spot for the load.

Plus, some guys(used loosely) really want to do it on their own. No one strapped to them, and no one holding on to them. I hope enough people realize that SL is a valuable tool to have available to teach people to jump out of airplanes.

Some students can simply not process, retain,and use all the information we present at the AFF FJC. It is a huge amount to injest. After all, we are making them drink from a fire hydrant of information. It is also easier for student to swallow the knowledge that they have to repeat a jump when the jump costs $50 or $60 as opposed to $175.

I hope enogh people see the light that sl is good for this sport.

It is good for the student, it is good for the instructors, and it is good for the dzo's bottom line at the end of the day. Sending up a few loads to 3500' in the Cessna is better than said Cessna sitting in the hanger all day while we fly the turbine.

I chose AFF for the same reason I didn't want to do a tandem first. Those jumps might be more expensive, but they are also your first experiences skydiving.

While I don't know much past the basics of static line, I also think that more coaching and experience before getting your license would be safer and more preferable.

What? Are you saying you believe AFF packs more coaching/experience into getting your license than SL? The requirements for the A license are the same, no matter which method you go through. Read up a little bit about SL, theres tons of threads here about it.

I never understood why someone would want to pay $200-$300 for the first 8 jumps, then still do coach jumps for the next 17.

You don't have to - I think I did 4 of 5 coach jumps to complete the A card requirements. (The rest were jump and have some fun - first solos without circus stunts to perform, first tailgate exits at a boogie, etc) Some DZs do have coaches for the rest of the progression, but in those cases, they're getting a lot more training than is required.

Having worked on DZs that offered both for years, I do believe that AFF students are better flyers at 25 jumps than those who go standard progression.

I'll give you that, but I'll argue that S/L-IAD students are better canopy pilots in those 25 jumps.

We don't have a whole lot of people dying in freefall these days you know.....

I'd really favor a hybrid program.....a couple tandems focusing on canopy work, and initial fear reduction, then 3 or 4 S/L-IAD jumps for canopy skills followed by 4 or 5 AFF levels. Why should we pressure a novice to learn so many aspects on one jump? Many of them are overwhelmed to the point that instructors de-emphasize canopy work, and focus on just the freefall to "get the student through". The student never gets that needed canopy work and specific briefings, never is given the opportunity to focus on just canopy flight.

That there is what really 'killed' SL: The attitude of experienced jumpers and the novice needing to be seen as cool.

I've read this thread and skipped over most of the posts made by those who can only see one side of the argument. From the student's perspective, there IS no best training method. Some students will perform better with SL, others with AFF. Besides which, students from both methods will experience their own hiccups down the line. For SL, the first freeefall from 12k is just as terrifying as the first CP from 3.5k is to AFF. AFF might produce better freefallers, but SL could produce better canopy flyers. In the end it's all the same and ideally it should be up to the student to decide which method appeals to them most. In practice....

I agree that there is less stuff to concentrate on without the freefall aspect but they aren't exposed to more canopy experience on the first few jumps from what i can see as they ext at 3.5? where as aff deploy at 5/6 then usually continue at around 4.5 after aff untill off their consols.

I guess the (perceived) difference lies in the fact that the AFF-er has just had that overwhelming freefall 'happen to them', if you'll excuse the phrasing, while the SL-er only has the canopy ride to focus on.

Mind you, I am not saying that either method is superior to the other, just that both place the accent on different stuff.

While we all agree that it would be foolish to drop S/L from a fast turbine like a King Air, Twin Otters and Caravans can be slowed down to safely drop S/L. The question becomes: "Is the DZO willing to WASTE expensive engine hours to drop S/L?"

Bad Lippspringer bought the first Kodiak (similar to Caravan) specifically to haul S/L.

Some students can simply not process, retain,and use all the information we present at the AFF FJC. It is a huge amount to ingest. After all, we are making them drink from a fire hydrant of information. It is also easier for student to swallow the knowledge that they have to repeat a jump when the jump costs $50 or $60 as opposed to $175.

That is the biggest difference between S/L and AFF. S/L dishes out new information in small doses, doses mall enough that students can easily absorb them. Remember that different students can absorb different amounts of information on different days.

The ideal training program incorporates the best parts of tandem, S/L, wind tunnel, AFF and coaching. Tandem is a great way to get through the sensory over load of the their first jump. S/L is great at teaching the basics of landing patterns. Wind tunnels are the best way to teach freefall stability and the basics of freefall turns. AFF puts it all together. Coaching completes the learning process. No one method is perfect.

>Isn't the objective of the PRCP to pull the dummy ripcord in good order, >not to "beat the deployment"?

Yes. However, if you do arch - reach - (canopy opens) - feel - pull, you really haven't demonstrated your ability to deploy a parachute while remaining stable in freefall. That's a disadvantage to direct bag, and an advantage to PCA.

My DZ uses a Student Training Program (STP) that is based off the ISP training objectives. We don't do the minimum 7 jumps and "off you go" AFF. Yes, the jumps cost more and there is more expense to the student ($2000-$2500 or so window depending on the student). A lot of people think that's the DZ pinching the students for more money. I disagree. The education that student gets for the money spent is worth it, IMHO.

I have a difficult time believing that a S/L student has any greater canopy skills than one of our STP students. We spend 18 jumps with not only freefall objectives, but canopy flight objectives on every jump. Our pull altitude for the first few jumps is 5500, not 3500, so the students are actually spending more time under canopy, at least initially. Students learn to find the DZ from a long spot at the end of jump run. They don't always exit right over the top of the DZ. Our students gain experience flying in a canopy pattern, entering and flying the pattern. I'm not saying that a S/L student doesn't do this, but I believe there is something gained from flying with more than 2 or 3 other canopies in the air. Perhaps a S/L student spends more time spotting, but we also teach that. But a student learns to spot a "window" for jumprun, not just get out over the DZ.

I guarantee that our average student at 25 jumps will outfly the average S/L student in freefall! Bold, yes. But that's how confident I am in the program. A S/L student will spend the $$ they saved trying to catch up. We have detailed training objectives that focus on all aspects of the skydive throughout the program. There is also "student choice" dive-flows for students to focus on specific skills they need work on or want to get better at. We provide instructor video on EVERY jump (no extra charge). We provide that video to the student on DVD.

So, say what you want about initial cost. The A-license proficiency card contains "minimum" requirements. I sincerely believe our program exceeds those requirements and offers the student/customer greater value for $$ spent. If you think a S/L student at the end of 25 jumps is at the same level of skill as one of our STP students, I respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree!

I agree that there is less stuff to concentrate on without the freefall aspect but they aren't exposed to more canopy experience on the first few jumps from what i can see as they ext at 3.5? where as aff deploy at 5/6 then usually continue at around 4.5 after aff untill off their consols.

If the SL program includes close attention to their students' canopy flight, that's a lot of jumps with feedback. If they essentially ignore them, it's no better than AFF, or worse since they open just above their decision height and have less spare altitude to screw around.

On the AFF side, the same economics people have talked about here often have the AFF-I doing back to backs (or triples) and any debrief may not happen for an hour or more, which is really detrimental to the process.

I have a difficult time believing that a S/L student has any greater canopy skills than one of our STP students. We spend 18 jumps with not only freefall objectives, but canopy flight objectives on every jump. Our pull altitude for the first few jumps is 5500, not 3500, so the students are actually spending more time under canopy, at least initially. Students learn to find the DZ from a long spot at the end of jump run. They don't always exit right over the top of the DZ. Our students gain experience flying in a canopy pattern, entering and flying the pattern. I'm not saying that a S/L student doesn't do this, but I believe there is something gained from flying with more than 2 or 3 other canopies in the air. Perhaps a S/L student spends more time spotting, but we also teach that. But a student learns to spot a "window" for jumprun, not just get out over the DZ.

I guarantee that our average student at 25 jumps will outfly the average S/L student in freefall! Bold, yes. But that's how confident I am in the program. A S/L student will spend the $$ they saved trying to catch up. We have detailed training objectives that focus on all aspects of the skydive throughout the program. There is also "student choice" dive-flows for students to focus on specific skills they need work on or want to get better at. We provide instructor video on EVERY jump (no extra charge). We provide that video to the student on DVD.

So, say what you want about initial cost. The A-license proficiency card contains "minimum" requirements. I sincerely believe our program exceeds those requirements and offers the student/customer greater value for $$ spent. If you think a S/L student at the end of 25 jumps is at the same level of skill as one of our STP students, I respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree!

I just have to say making a blanket statement that "my students are better than yours" just seems humorous to me. Some students are just better and have more natural ability than others. Not every person learns the same and at the same level. I would gather there are varying levels of achievement from all disciplines from all drop zones.

The canopy control part is due to the fact that a s/l student has 3 or 4 jumps to every AFF jump. And the first 5 focus solely on canopy control without having an overload of information.

I am not in a debate over which program is better. Like everything in our sport there are two many factors involved and there is never a single answer to any question (other than "it depends").

What if someone had the passion to jump but couldn't afford 2-3K up front. Should they not pursue it or pursue it at a slower/less expensive rate that they can afford. Perhaps he/she won't be a super flyer at 25 jumps (who the hell is?) but he/she is pursuing their passion.

I'm not saying my students are better than yours. I realize that each student is different. That's why I said "average". I am however saying that I believe our STP program is a better program than S/L. BUT...I am NOT saying that S/L is not a good program. I believe it is a viable student training program that is proven. But I believe at the end of each of these programs, a student from our STP program has a significant advantage that is well worth the extra money spent. I believe this from my experience with students from both programs.

Like anything else, generalization is not the best way to judge and I realize that. But this thread seems to be comparing AFF vs. S/L. I don't know another efficient way to discuss the differences without generalizing, at least somewhat.

You say that S/L has 3-4 jumps per AFF jump. I said our student program does 18 jumps and I used for comparison a S/L student and STP student, each with 25 jumps. That's 1 for 1 if I'm not mistaken. I used the A-license requirement for a means of comparison.

Again, I'm not knocking the S/L program. Many, many fantastic skydivers entered the sport through that method. But I am a firm believer that our STP program is better, much better.

This thread has also discussed costs involved. Yes, the STP or AFF program is more expensive, but I believe our STP program is more cost effective in the long run. I've heard the arguments both ways. I've seen and experienced both programs. My opinion remains firm. BUT, it is just that.....my opinion.

There are many reasons why S/L progression is dying: trend, DZ need for fast money, fast education, wrongly considered as old fashion...well your choice. AFF if faster for sure but I believe this is not for everybody. Some people would prefer a slower progression and have more time between jumps to get knowledgeable about skydiving or in a word, getting more mature skydivingly speaking. Some facts show more or less as you said that after 20-30 jumps, you don't see a big difference between former AFF and S/L students only for the money they have invested. AFF required more sudden money especially if you register for the whole program and at some DZ, you don't have the choice. The best would be that a DZ offers the choice between AAF, S/L and also IAD (Instructor Assisted Deployment). That would please everybody. The advantage with AFF is that you use the same rig all the time. Same with IAD where the pilot chute poach has just to allow the pilot chute to be on the left side for IAD and on the right side for free fall. Some DZ are still using S/L and believe strongly in that program. A good example is Skydive Toronto Inc. which was the home DZ of Jay Moledzki, the canopy piloting world champion. No too bad for a S/L DZ. You have here the point of view of a jumper. I guess a DZ owner's answer might be quite different.

Your students will be better and you will keep them longer if you are able to spend more time with them. S/L program is better for that because it takes more time. When will people understand that skydiving is a social sport. Beginners have to feel being part of the family. And yes, you can drop S/L jumpers from a Twin Otter like I have seen it at ZHills a year ago.

Your students will be better and you will keep them longer if you are able to spend more time with them. S/L program is better for that because it takes more time. When will people understand that skydiving is a social sport. Beginners have to feel being part of the family. And yes, you can drop S/L jumpers from a Twin Otter like I have seen it at ZHills a year ago.

While I understand what you're saying and why, in some cases I disagree. The STP program I described is nearly as long (in jumps) as a static line progression. And I spend SIGNIFICANTLY more time with each student on one-on-one instruction/coaching for each jump, particularly in freefall. We don't deal with 3 students at a time. We provide a detailed video debrief of each jump.

I realize that many AFF programs don't offer the same. But there are many dropzones that continue a coaching/training program beyond the minimum requirements.

>you will keep them longer if you are able to spend more time with them. > S/L program is better for that because it takes more time.

At high volume drop zones I have noticed the opposite.

During a typical AFF jump, you get direct attention from 1 or 2 instructors for ground prep, aircraft ride, the jump itself and (sometimes) the landing and the walk back. During a typical SL jump, you get 1/3 of the attention from 1 instructor on the ground and in the plane, no direct attention (other than observation) in the air and, generally, the attention of someone else when you're landing.

From there, of course, both students can have lots of attention paid to them (by the instructor or someone else) or none, for debriefs, next dive prep etc. But going purely on a program basis, you get far more 'face time' with an instructor in AFF.

It sounds like what you are offering is like you say, more than the average training. You can take that same philosophy of teaching above and beyond and put out above average jumpers in any discipline. As you said though, it translates into more money. Oh, and the cost of training beyond A license is the same, no matter what method you used to get your license. Lift tickets, and lots of them. I imagine I will still be learning how to be a better skydiver 3000 jumps from now. Were my freefall skills as good as and average AFF jumper turned A license at the same jump #'s, probably not. Are they now, compared to an "average" jumper that progressed through AFF, probably. The point of the post, it seems is off topic though. This isn't AFF verses Static-Line. This is why isn't Static line offered as a viable alternative, when up front funds are an issue.

I agree with you up to the point where the student reaches the end of the AFF program. No wonder, he has paid the big money. I also understand that big DZs need to be very efficient. But from my point of view the social part of skydiving is still the most important for the health of our sport. I invite everybody to read again a chapter or two of a related post of mine written in 2006 : << STATE OF SPORT PARA.FINAL.240.doc (56.0 KB) >> published on "Skydiving History and Trivia" forum on this site.

I agree with all. If you consider "up-front" costs the determining factor, then S/L is definitely the less expensive option. In a lot of cases people don't want to wait to accumulate funds. They want to skydive now. I understand that.

I am merely pointing out that considering value for the $$, there may be better options. I know plenty of broke-ass 18-year olds that packed their way through AFF and on to hundreds, even thousands of jumps. Sometimes it's worth considering what you're getting for your money (or your pack jobs) rather than "up-front" costs.

For my ~$1400 (4 years ago) I got 25 jumps, including at least 10 coach jumps from 14K in an Otter, and my A license. Same as the person who paid $1000 more for AFF. That $1000 bought me some tunnel time and a whole lot more jumps.

This isn't AFF verses Static-Line. This is why isn't Static line offered as a viable alternative, when up front funds are an issue.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for pointing this out. I am in no way saying one is better over the other. We NEED options in this sport because there are so many variances in people, programs, drop zones, etc.

I have been a long time avid lurker of this forum and have recently begun to throw in my 2 cents here and there. What has struck me as odd time and time again is when a newbie (who hasn't even jumped yet or perhaps made a tandem) is not able to jump because of funds. I never saw anyone say "hey you know there is this static line program out there offered at smaller dz's and it might be something to consider"

And NB I am not doubting you have a good program. I just don't think it is the "norm". I have seen AFF students set "free" after 8 jumps. Then they either get coaching or just do some unsupervised solo's until they have enough jumps to get their A license. Some even seem like little lost puppies. I WILL say that I believe it is up to the student to seek advice, seek more experienced jumpers to help them continue through their progression.

Again, I never intended to make this a "which is better" discussion - I just wish it were presented more to those entering into the sport without the knowledge to KNOW they could go to a smaller Cessna DZ and start jumping today!

I agree with all, particularly that variety is good. I think JP and another stated that earlier. S/L is still certainly a very viable option for those short on funds that want to jump and certainly has other advantages as well. I suppose my emphasis on the other has precluded that, but yes, I agree.

>Isn't the objective of the PRCP to pull the dummy ripcord in good order, >not to "beat the deployment"?

Yes. However, if you do arch - reach - (canopy opens) - feel - pull, you really haven't demonstrated your ability to deploy a parachute while remaining stable in freefall. That's a disadvantage to direct bag, and an advantage to PCA.

I see your point...but (devil's advocate) they aren't deploying anything with a dummy ripcord - they're showing that they can hold an arch and finish the PRCP, demonstrating they can complete the primary objective - "PULL"

What has struck me as odd time and time again is when a newbie (who hasn't even jumped yet or perhaps made a tandem) is not able to jump because of funds. I never saw anyone say "hey you know there is this static line program out there offered at smaller dz's and it might be something to consider"

Probably Definitely off-topic, but you got me started:

[can of worns] Something that really annoys the hell out of me personally is when a student buys gear and chooses to jump without AAD only because they 'haven't got the funds'. [/can of worms]

[barrel of worms] This is especially true if they buy brand new custom equipment and proceed to make 500 jumps that season. think people! [/barrel of worms]

Well, here's my personal view on it - as someone that's planning on doing AFF this summer my reason is current for me.

When I got the urge to try the sport, I went to a dropzone to do a static line jump, got the days worth of training, swore at the wind that had ripped off I believe all three windsocks and came back a few weeks later. Jump went well, landed on my feet and generally felt amazing :)

However, when I think of progressing like that it worries me because on youtube there are many videos showing AFF students going unstable during freefall, and I wonder - if I am on s/l, that means I'm starting from lower heights, which means if I go unstable there is less time to deal with it. I guess it's the idea that, if you have 14,000 feet to fall from, there is more time to get stable/get used to it.

So from a 'I have no idea what I'm talking about' point of view, it seems safer as there appears to be more time, though this does conversely mean more time to do wrong in. I would do static line again, but, I don't think I would be so comfy with starting freefall that way because you're on your own and it seems like more action compacted into a smaller time frame. I only have these thoughts because there is an alternative. And probably because of the damaged knee I got from a rather aggressive Norwegian fyord has given me a year to sit and think about it rather than being able to do it after my first.

Please, I would love for some explanations on why I'm looking at it the wrong way, because if my point of view is flawed then you could make it possible for me to try get my skydive license for a third-ish of the price if everything went well. :)

Oh and the being cool thing - it makes me sad when people do things for that reason - there's not much dumber. Reminds me of the guy I did the s/l with, he had 4 jumps by this point, and after it he told me the best thing about it was that everyone on the motorway beside the dropzone would have seen him and thought 'wow there's a guy under a parachute - how cool'. I remember thinking why were you looking at the road, of all the things to look at....

>if you have 14,000 feet to fall from, there is more time to get stable/get used to it.

There is some truth to that. SL relies on your parachute being opened so rapidly for your first few jumps that you can't get yourself in too much trouble. The first few freefalls are the 'danger' area where an unstable student can be bad news. However, the ability to do that (exit and remain stable for a few seconds) is sort of what static line is all about, and much of the training covers how to do that. The thinking is that if you can do it for 5 seconds you can "work up" to longer delays and higher freefall speeds.

Valid point. As to her question about whether more altitude gives her more time to get into trouble ...

We use two different airplanes for PFF. One airplane only climbs to 10,000 feet, while they other airplane easily climbs to 12,500 feet. I prefer doing PFF dives from 12,500 feet because it gives the student more time to relax in freefall and more time to accomplish tasks. PFF dives always seem "rushed" from 10,000 feet and are always more "relaxed" from 12,500 feet.

The dividing line is at students who can only afford one AFF jump per month. They will forget too much between dives and will have to repeat too many levels. For the same money, they can make three S/L dives, remember what they did on the last dive and add to those skills.

I've started working on my A license and I'm going through the static line progression. The DZ provides all three methods (S/L, AFF, Tandem) or any mix-n-match the students want. By going the S/L route, I'll save more than $1,000. I didn't go the tandem route because, even though it's the money-maker for the DZOs, you're just baggage.

Since I don't have to make any more jumps than people going through AFF or tandem, I will actually get the A license (assuming no repeat jumps) plus an additional 40 jumps for the same cost. That, of course, puts me into a B license if I decide to work on that (probably will).

S/L isn't an inferior discipline. Just follow the money. AFF and tandem progressions make more money for the DZOs. That's why, at most DZs, the tandems get priority on the loads, followed by AFFs, then followed by S/Ls, licensed jumpers, etc.

Oh and the being cool thing - it makes me sad when people do things for that reason - there's not much dumber. Reminds me of the guy I did the s/l with, he had 4 jumps by this point, and after it he told me the best thing about it was that everyone on the motorway beside the dropzone would have seen him and thought 'wow there's a guy under a parachute - how cool'. I remember thinking why were you looking at the road, of all the things to look at.... You've got the "being cool" thing exactly right. People aren't "buying it" because their canopy didn't open or they had a streamer, etc. They're buying it (most of the time) in the jump plane or under a good canopy. The stats clearly show that the sport can be done safely as long as people don't get complacent or cocky. However, I don't know how many times I hear jumpers talk with whuffo's like every jump is like staring death in the face (just to look cool - i.e., "brave").

I still get nervous every time the door opens but I still jump simply because it's the only way I can get under a canopy and fly. That's not "brave". If the sport was as dangerous as some people want to make it sound (so they look cool), they'd have terror in their eyes before every jump!

People aren't "buying it" because their canopy didn't open or they had a streamer, etc. They're buying it (most of the time) in the jump plane or under a good canopy. The stats clearly show that the sport can be done safely as long as people don't get complacent or cocky.

Yeah, so long as people make sure not to make mistakes, they'll be fine!!!

Actually, no, that still doesn't cover it. You mentioned one of them (aircraft problems) already. This sport isn't remotely safe. But safe enough, yeah, at least for my own personal assessment. Everyone makes their own.

My daughter made a tandem for fun, and it was great, she has other interests now. If she wanted to get her license I like the hybrid idea, tandems, S/L and then some AAF........... I have seen videos of the 30 jump wonders having trouble in freefall (stabilty wise ), I dont recall myself or other S/L buddies having such troubles back in the day ( if we stuck with the program, of course ). Now, I have to agree, HUGELY, that some S/L students REALLY do try do become fatalities !!!

My daughter made a tandem for fun, and it was great, she has other interests now. If she wanted to get her license I like the hybrid idea, tandems, S/L and then some AAF........... I have seen videos of the 30 jump wonders having trouble in freefall (stabilty wise ), I dont recall myself or other S/L buddies having such troubles back in the day ( if we stuck with the program, of course ). Now, I have to agree, HUGELY, that some S/L students REALLY do try do become fatalities !!!

This really doesn't make sense to me. Could you please explain? I don't see how you can say some static line students really do try to become fatalities.

The thing of it is there are people who went through AFF that are decent at 30 jumps and there are people who went through static line progression that are decent also. There are also those who haven't quite acquired the skills by then. 30 jump wonders having trouble in free fall could pertain to either category.

There are several opinions out there, and that is just what they are. People learn differently and what works for one may not work for another. I think having a choice of methods is a good thing.

Ok, I've struggled over time to get to level 4 aff, and the reason is I ain't rich. I'm a middle aged dude that drives a truck for a livin', but I love the sky. There are no dz's in the So. Cal. area that does S/L. I was looking at web sites of other dz's where S/L cost as low as 40 bucks a jump right through A lic. I would be able to jump way more, period. I made my very 1st jump, 34 years ago under a round, via S/L , it was just as fun to me then as my aff jumps are now, except I didn't have to explain to the Ol' lady why I blew almost 300 bucks away in the wind....literally! Wanna grow the sport? make it affordable for more folks.

That your problem, you jump in SOCAL, quit doing that and stop that truck more in states where you can do SL. While it's getting harder to find those types of dz's there are a few still around or those who do IAD, still the same progression over all.

Also with the USPA ISP you can more over to the other programs and lower your cost, that is if your current and with 2yrs and only 6 jump I didn't think your very current and I would guess that is due to your work and the VERY high cost of jumping in SOCAL.

what I was trying to convey is that AAF has been proven to be much safer than S/L ( or IAD ) as 1st jump students can really get into a world of hurt right off the step.. however my view is that the old Cessna drop zones where your instructors quickly became your buddy and that the hangar talk after hours and learning to spot starting on jump 7 or 8 was a great way to really really learn. I think some of that is missing these days.. IMO

Everything is evolving, people have to realize that old things won't stay forever, there will always be something that will replace them..

Some DZ's still operate SL courses, but still, most of them do AFF's.. In a way you can learn more during an SL course, but I believe that AFF is more efficient and shit loads more fun (you're going to learn stuff while skydiving anyway)..

my understanding is that AAF has a really low fatal accident rate.... correct me if I am wrong. Note that I was saying that SL has many pluses, however, anyone watching SL or IAD students for long will get the hell scared out of them watching near disasters and close calls.

Students have a really low fatal accident rate. I'd like to see hard numbers, for AFF and SL both.

Anyone watching AFF students, even for short, will get the hell scared out of them watching near disasters and close calls. They get two chances to fuck up: freefall and canopy flight. And canopy flight can never get all the focus it gets with SL because attention has to be paid to the freefall part as well.

(Can you tell I was reared on a static line and enjoy canopy flying? )

The numbers I could find on short notice, for the Netherlands only, counting injuries only (it's been a while since a students died. I remember 1 incident in the past ten years. no way to base statistics on 1 in a million, literally). AFF 1 injury per 250-800 jumps (last year ~ 1800 total jumps). SL 1 injury per 250-450 jumps (last year ~ 4500 jumps). (For comparison: experienced jumpers injure themselves 1 in 2000-3000 jumps. Sample size ~ 50 000.) Given the limited sample size, I would not say one or the other is more accident-prone. SL'ers sometimes hurt an arm because it collides with a static line; AFF'ers sometimes get roughed up by a bridle after an unstable opening.

Method is driven by economics. Also, in areas where the population is less dense, maintaining staff is an issue. I'd struggle like hell to staff for AFF, it would mean 2 or 3 Instructors being at the DZ every weekend from 8 am till 8 pm, oh, and do that 40 hr day job thing.

Quality in my opinion has more to do with the quality of instruction than method. We had a student travel to Florida, train AFF, then do 10 +/- solo jumps. When he showed up at our DZ i asked to see his A card, he didn't know what I was talking about.

Dollar for dollar, a SL/IAD student Will have 50+ jumps, while the AFF guy has 20.

Then there's the culture. Once students at small 182 DZs complete their license, the staff and up jumpers still will jump with them! Wow!

The USPA seems somewhat bent on killing SL too. If it weren't for a few on the BOD like Peek, and Mullins carrying the water for the "Mom and pop operations" (Mullins term) maintaining a small DZ would be harder yet! The USPA BOD is dominated by large DZ guys who have forgotten, or never had exposure to how a small operation works. The ISP was designed around AFF, with the "second rate" methods worked in as an after thought.

Agreed! Just yesterday morning I had a chat with a student who was struggling with the decision whether to go PFF or gradual freefall. I told him that if money was tight (e.g. he could only afford one PFF jump per month) he was better off witht he gradual method. At sunset we celebrated his first 3 second freefall!

For the record, I have taught skydiving since 1982. Yesterday I did three tandems, a PFF and some rigging. In previous years I dropped hundreds of static-liners, so I have no bias towards one method over another ... was there a pun in that last sentence?????

>A lot of people who are highly knowledgeable about the sport >would disagree with that.

Statistically it is safer. However, that is not due to the inherent superiority of either method; rather, it is due to the fact that AFF is fairly new, and thus all AFF jumps have been made with modern gear.

If you took AFF from, say, 1994 to today and SL from 1994 to today and compared just those injury rates they'd probably be quite similar. The one difference I would note is that SLers tend to get minor injuries more often due to getting hands/feet hung up in the deploying canopy. (That's more a problem with direct bag than with PC assist tho.)

Dollar for dollar, a SL/IAD student Will have 50+ jumps, while the AFF guy has 20.

This is an issue I brought up with the management at my DZ this winter. We will do static line, but it's never offered and not advertised. If a customer calls up and already knows about SL, and is set on that, they will do an SL class for them. I think we did about 4 SL students last year.

With the state of the economy, I couldn't help but think that offering the SL course up front would be a good idea. For half the price of a tandem, and 1/3 the cost of AFF lv 1, you get a customer onto the DZ and they get to make a solo jump.

A big issue people throw around is retaining new jumpers, and turning them from 'customers' into 'jumpers'. My opinion is that the investment in time and personal accomplishment involved from taking the FJC tends to push people more in the direction of making a second jump, however with AFF, the cost of lv 1, and the return jump is close to $500. That's a steep price for two jumps.

With SL, you could just about make three jumps for $200. Not only a big savings, but more importantly, it represents additional return trips to the DZ, and additional opportunities to involve these new jumpers in the 'DZ family'.

I started with SL, and had to make 5 SL jumps with three good dummy ripcord pulls. I was then cleared for an AFF lv. 1 style jump. Seeing as I had five SL jumps, the training for the first freefall was limited to freefall stuff, so the cost was far less than an actual AFF lv 1.

With this type of program, the $500 that gets an AFF student two jumps (and two trips to the DZ) would get the SL student the FJC, 4 additional SL jumps, and a modified AFF lv 1 (totaling 6 trips to the DZ).

Now I understand the argument that skydiving is expensive, and if you can't afford AFF you can't afford to skydive, but there's also merit to the thought that you need to get somebody in the door, and show them what skydiving is all about. Once they have handful of jumps, and see what the deal is, they might be more likely to spend more their money on skydiving. I'm not the least bit surprised to see the younger guys with 100 jumps who spend every cent they have on jumps, and can barely afford to eat. I'd more surprised to hear that a tandem student spent every cent they had on their first jump.

Now I understand the argument that skydiving is expensive, and if you can't afford AFF you can't afford to skydive.

I don't. Not from the students perspective (or best interest) anyway. Every individual student will have a method that's best suited for them. The argument as you quoted iit only makes sense from a cash-cow perspective: 'If only ten percent of students continues to make even a second jump, we'd better have them pay $1000 instead of $300. For the student both methods average out if they do continue to skydive'.

But I'm not slamming you buddy - I'm slamming the ones who made up said argument.

isnt it like that only 50% of the ones doing an AFF first jump, get to finish the whole AFF-course. and out of those, about 10% end up aqquiring a license!? those numbers i was told were quite accurate for switzerland..

But I'm not slamming you buddy - I'm slamming the ones who made up said argument.

The argument has some merit in that if you could never afford to spend $300 in one day at the DZ, maybe skydiving isn't for you. Let's face it, gear will set you back a few thousand bucks, and jumps aren't free.

But I think there are plenty of people who could afford to skydive if they thought it was worth it.

I for one wouldn't hesitate to spend $300 on jumps for a busy day at a boogie. Add to that the cost of travel, food, beer, wear and tear on my gear, and it's an expensive day, but one I've paid for many, many times.

Now from what I understand, top level golf courses can have greens fees that are in that same price range, but I would never consider spending that type of money on an afternoon at a golf course. I guess if I started at a local public course, and developed my skills, and eventually wanted the challenge of a top level course, then maybe that money would be worth it, but for my first afternoon ruining a good walk, it wouldn't happen.

An issue that doesn’t occur to people unless you answer the phone is time. If you’re explaining one method to someone with zero knowledge, it’s a 2 to 5 minute conversation. Add a second training option and unless it’s a “Oh, we want to go attached…” conversation, it’s a 10 to 30 minute call. Now, go into a conversation on “which is better, SL, or AFF” and you’re looking at 20 min to an hour. No biggie if it’s one call a day, but even with my little one 182 DZ, it can be 20 calls a day, though the vast majority are “Oh, we want to go attached…”

Sure, you can always simply tell them to go look at the web site, but you need to be careful with that. The customer feels like their spending a lot of money, and that they should be given all the time they think they need.

Maybe that’s why SR concentrates on Tandem “Don’t spend time explaining options, just get the damn credit card info! Our business is making money, not skydiving!”

It's generally more about priorities. Maybe choose not to drive a $30,000 vehicle, sell your jet skies, 4 wheelers, etc. That said, the prospective student has to be at a place in life where they have both the "spare" time and money. A mommy with 5 young kids, eat'n on food stamps, and any time/money expensive hobby aren't a good fit. All that said, at that point "AFF, or SL" is moot.

I get your point about time on the phone, but that's where it's up to the DZ to staff the phones with someone who's good at dealing with people and who can stay 'on message' and give just enough time to each call to satisfy the customer.

The other point is that if you're trying to get and retain students, then they are worth the extra time you'll spend on the phone. Yeah, it might take extra time to speak to them, but you're after a long term relationship with these people, and there's no such thing as a free lunch. If you want a cookie cutter tandem student, they can make a reservation online. If you want to make a new jumper, you might need to work for it.

As I replied to another post, the money thing is only part of it. Of course you need the 'perfect storm' of a student with time, money, and desire, but when you look at the ratio of 5 SL jumps + one freefall to 2 AFF jumps for the same money, the value is on the side of SL.

Let's keep in mind were talking about $500. If that's a weeks take-hone pay for a guy, it's a big slice of the pie to drop on a new, unknown hobby, but if you can hook that guy, bringing home $500 a week is enough income for a guy to become a skydiver.

All of this is leaving out the basic concept that the SL FJC is half the price of a tandem, and afforable to a wider variety of people. Even if they don't make jump #2 or beyond, you get them to the DZ and make money off of people you might never get out there for twice the price.

Again, let's keep in mind what a guy can get for $200 or $225 these days. That's a (small) car payment, a months grocery bill for a small family, utilities for a month, things that people need way more than a 'ride' at a DZ. Cut the price in half, and it's much easier pill to swallow.

The other point is that if you're trying to get and retain students, then they are worth the extra time you'll spend on the phone.

We (my wife) do take/give the time. For our "mom and pop DZ" time on the phone equates to one additional reason not to attempt to offer AFF. We train IAD, and tandem.

From a 1-182 DZO standpoint, I "need" to bring enough new people into the sport to maintain future staff. I have no aspirations of growing into a turbine, or for that matter a 2-182 DZ. I train "too many" new skydivers, and it would just back up the manifest. Not that this has ever really been much of an issue, at least to me (some fun jumpers don't like to spend all day at the DZ to make their 3 or 5 jumps).

Am I missing something? I always thought SL was essentially like you see in the army. You jump out, your canopy is yanked out. If there are other ways, correct me please. But with this way, there is no freefall!? It's like a hop and pop, you shouldn't be able to get your license doing hop n pops. In my opinion, that minute of freefall and ALL of the variables that you must control are the most important. Anyone can steer a canopy down (for the most part.) But it's the stability and freefall skills such as turning etc. that are the most important

Yes, you're missing something. Static line jumps are only the beginning of the student progression. Most programs have a student do five static line jumps before they move to their first delay, generally 5 seconds. The student then works up to 10 second and 15 second delays before going to full altitude.

Both AFF and Static Line students have to demonstrate all the skills on the A license progression card to become licensed - they just do them in a different order.

SL (and IAD) follow a whole progression, which over here is 3 good SL exits followed by 2 consecutive dummy pulls, first freefall within 24 hrs after last dummy, first freefall is 10 secs, if that goes well you go on to do longer freefalls and get more freefall and other tasks, until you completed everything on your A card, same as a AFF student has to to earn his/her A.

In my opinion, that minute of freefall and ALL of the variables that you must control are the most important. Anyone can steer a canopy down (for the most part.) But it's the stability and freefall skills such as turning etc. that are the most important

And THAT is something I'd expect from an AFF baby

What is the most important part of the jump? That you land safely so you can jump again. SL jumpers get way more canopy time at first so they are free to focus on the most important part, getting down safely. A very good thing in my book.

Yes. "S/L" really means "S/L progression". (Same with IAD.) Generally, you make your first 5 or so jumps on the static line. During your last 3 S/L jumps (usually jumps #'s 3, 4 & 5), you do a "dummy ripcord/pilot chute pull" - you're still deployed by the S/L (or IAD), but there's a handle you're equipped with to simulate the act of pulling a ripcord or pilot chute handle. Then you move on to your first freefall, which is usually a hop & pop. Then do increasingly longer delays (5 seconds, 10 seconds, 20, 30, etc.), demonstrating the ability to remain stable & on-heading. Once you're reliably stable on 30 second delays, you then practice other skills also taught in AFF: turns, back/front loops, barrel rolls, basic 2-person relative work, tracking, canopy skills. More often than not, a S/L or IAD student eventually works up to his A license in about 25 to 30 jumps, just as an AFF student does - but the overall cost is cheaper.

In my opinion, that minute of freefall and ALL of the variables that you must control are the most important. Anyone can steer a canopy down (for the most part.) But it's the stability and freefall skills such as turning etc. that are the most important

Most important is being able to walk to the hangar afterward. Canopy flight errors kill. Sometimes they even kill other jumpers who did nothing wrong. Turning points is cool.... Landing safely is essential.

In my opinion, that minute of freefall and ALL of the variables that you must control are the most important. Anyone can steer a canopy down (for the most part.) But it's the stability and freefall skills such as turning etc. that are the most important

Most important is being able to walk to the hangar afterward. Canopy flight errors kill. Sometimes they even kill other jumpers who did nothing wrong. Turning points is cool.... Landing safely is essential.

Very well said!

I'm glad I came up through S/L - it's not easy, but you know you've got it when you've got it. Having to "earn" freefall was a very humbling but enlightening experience for me - as soon as I was on 10-second delays, this sport became VERY personal to me. Maybe it's just the sheer speed that you don't experience in the beginning of the progression, when your decisions and actions need to adapt to that faster reality - where half a second really means something.

The Static Line progression is not a dying discipline - it's just not for everyone. And that's ok.

My DZO says that AFF gets pushed at turbine dz's because they can drop everybody on one pass.

Any chance your DZO's name was AJ? He told me the same thing back in 2000 when the DZ was at Waterloo. Always wondered how accurate it was.

I think tandems have killed it off. Tandems are very good $$ for DZs and it takes someone with a bit of training to do it, more so than a SLI. Someone with a tandem rating is likely to have/want AFF training or be more interested in the extra money made off that type of jumping.

Real shame though. When it was just SL being offered a student would come to the DZ wanting to "make a skydive", you'd do the 6-8 hours ground, have him spend $180 and when it was over, he could keep on jumping for $40 a pop. It made it real easy to come back out to the DZ over and over.

Now I take someone out and they want to do a tandem, still spend $180 and after if they want to jump again, it's another $180 for a 2nd tandem or $300 for AFF/ground school.

Most people get that "oh, it was fun but not THAT fun" look in their face.

My DZO says that AFF gets pushed at turbine dz's because they can drop everybody on one pass.

Any chance your DZO's name was AJ? He told me the same thing back in 2000 when the DZ was at Waterloo. Always wondered how accurate it was.

I think tandems have killed it off. Tandems are very good $$ for DZs and it takes someone with a bit of training to do it, more so than a SLI. Someone with a tandem rating is likely to have/want AFF training or be more interested in the extra money made off that type of jumping.

Real shame though. When it was just SL being offered a student would come to the DZ wanting to "make a skydive", you'd do the 6-8 hours ground, have him spend $180 and when it was over, he could keep on jumping for $40 a pop. It made it real easy to come back out to the DZ over and over.

Now I take someone out and they want to do a tandem, still spend $180 and after if they want to jump again, it's another $180 for a 2nd tandem or $300 for AFF/ground school.

Most people get that "oh, it was fun but not THAT fun" look in their face.

Yep, as a matter of fact it is him. We're in Angola now. It has pretty much turned into a tandem dz. It's because a lot of the fun jumpers moved, he does still encourage fun jumpers, and IAD students.

Static Line students are by themselves from their first jump. While they may be assisted by a JM in the plane and given radio guidance on the way down, they know that they did everything themselves as opposed to "being attached" to someone (booo, gay...) on their first jump. This makes for a more confident end product. AFF is a little better in this regard, however...

It definitely disgusts me when an experienced jumper refuses to get out unless they are above 3,000.

i am about to start my aff at the end of the month. i shopped around and found the cheapest place i could that was also highly rated. it works out to 73 dollars a jump all the way to 25 and a license.

You are getting a great deal because Hans (The Farm) offers an awesome discount for the package.

But static line is still cheaper, and you don't have to buy it in a package. first jump is $175 then $45 per jump after... comes out to less than $51 per jump for your a license.

Almost a $600 dollar savings over your package deal (which is MUCH cheaper than most AFF programs.) My AFF came out to $82 per jump (with out any repeats, much more expensive if you have too repeat) and it is still cheaper than a lot of places I have seen.

*I am not bad-mouthing AFF, I think it is a great way to learn (although I like the programs that replace the first level with a tandem more)

This seems to be an old thread, so I can hopefully help revive it......

As a newly minted solo COP holder, I can add some perspective to this as I have actually gone through both S/L and PFF (as known in Canada) programs. I started as a student in May of this year on a Solo FJC S/L program. My first jump absolutely rocked and I was hooked instantly. I came back to the DZ over several weekends to continue my S/L progression as I had my sights set on getting my A license as quickly as possible.

I had a really difficult time mastering a proper exit and arch on the S/L program (jumping out of a Cessena 182) as there was barely any freefall time. I had to do 7 jumps with a static line before I was cleared for freefall. While going up in the plane to do my first five second freefall, I totally froze up and could not make it out the door. The thought of jumping out of the plane and having to deploy my own parachute terrified me. I attempted a second jump the same day after getting a few different “pep” talks, and was able to pull off my 5 second freefall successfully.

The following week I started my 10 second freefall, failed once, and then had a nasty mal on my second attempt (unstable deployment, followed by the pilot chute being wrapped around my leg, then 5-8 seconds of struggling to free my leg, followed by a successful cutaway and reserve deployment). This was my 11th jump at the time. I came back one more time to repeat my 10 second freefall, but again could not make it out of the plane; my mind was fixated on the last jump, and the malfunction that occurred.

Eventually the DZO told me to go home, and never try skydiving again……

I took a month off and decided to rethink my priorities. I decided that I still wanted to skydive, and had to give this another shot.

I took a week off work, traveled to another DZ, and enrolled in their PFF program. I finished the program in about 3-4 days, including 20 minutes of tunnel time which were tremendously useful. I spent the remaining time at the DZ doing solo jumps and having a blast. I had a huge sense of accomplishment after completing my Solo COP, which encouraged me to continue pursuing my A license.

My feelings on the PFF versus S/L were that I learned a LOT more during the PFF program. The instructors were extremely supportive, and spent a lot of time briefing and debriefing each and every single jump. I also found it was very beneficial to do all the jumps back to back (if you can spend the $$) and complete the program in a span of 2-3 days, instead of coming back on weekends. The time in the wind tunnel with an experienced coach was invaluable; this took all the pressure off during my actual PFF jumps as I had rehearsed everything in the tunnel the night before.

All in all – I feel privileged and blessed to have tried both programs and completed the PFF successfully! Now to bang out that A license!

I have dropped more than 2000 students in S/L years ago and I can say there is some advantage using such a method. As a jumpmaster when using S/L you always can start the deployment earlier manually by pulling at the S/L when the student exit isn't stable and before he/she flips completely over. In few occasion I have seen the student being put back on his belly due to the S/L tension when he had started to fall sideway. This is not possible when the IAD is used.

While plenty of people have done fine going through static line, there is a bit of a military quality to it. If you can't hack doing what you need to do, or can't hack getting out of the plane on your own (as fadida did a couple times), you're done, tough luck, you might as well go bowling and stop wasting your money.

So static line isn't as forgiving if a student has problems. And many students with problems, make fine skydivers later, if they can get past their problems. PFF (and beyond that, the tunnel) gives people the TIME to sort out what they need to do.

(I was one of the first PFF instructors at fadidawood's DZ #1, who was trained by one of the head honcho's at DZ #2... who co-owns a tunnel. Very handy for them! )

My daughter took the french pac method, a sort of AFF method, with a not linked exit earlier in the course. I wanted to protect her from the sequence above, which could possibily happen on the s/l course. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gAzRXsc6HQ

I started with IAD jumps, loved it, and certainly was cheaper than the AFF route...but: Like others have said, I've seen some ugly openings with unstable IAD students. Hanging off the brace of a C182, instead of simply letting go/dropping, they shove off, flipping them on their back, sometimes even upside down. That's no good when the PC + bridle is out there whipping around. My home DZ never had any incidents with IAD openings as far as I know, but I think it could happen.

I started with IAD jumps, loved it, and certainly was cheaper than the AFF route...but: Like others have said, I've seen some ugly openings with unstable IAD students. Hanging off the brace of a C182, instead of simply letting go/dropping, they shove off, flipping them on their back, sometimes even upside down. That's no good when the PC + bridle is out there whipping around. My home DZ never had any incidents with IAD openings as far as I know, but I think it could happen.

I spent about five years dispatching SL, then we converted to IAD. The SL was PC assist, and I saw more scary stuff there then I ever have with IAD. I've never seen a PC hesitation with IAD, happened quite often with SL. That Velcro assist needs to be replaced every 5 or 10 jumps, otherwise it's useless. I had one SL student roll off backwards, and catch the PC bridle in his armpit, stopping the deployment. I remember being a SL student and watching my own PC from my back and head down thinking 'looks like it's working!' IAD is generally just a cleaner deployment. The PC is in the breeze and pulling within a fraction of a second of the student letting go of the airplane. Never had exposure to direct bag SL.

Another "problem" with SL as compared to IAD, is that the students generally are trained to pull a rip cord. They'll have to convert at some point. Either that, or the DZ has to maintain SL rigs with spring loaded PCs, and others set up for hand deployment. The other option would be switching PCs all the time. I have heard of a DZ considering doing PC assisted SL with hand deploy pilot chutes, but don't know if anyone's doing it. Even with that option, you have to pack either for hand deployment, or with the PC inside the container set up for SL. SL as compared to IAD is just a pain in the butt rigging wise.

With IAD, the student starts on the same configuration that he'll be jumping later, no transitions for him or the DZ.

The one thing that I see as being difficult with IAD on a BOC is the practice throws. By the time the student is locating his practice PC the bag is out of the container, and it's not rigid anymore. They just have to be very deliberate in locating the practice PC. Though, once they've done those PPCTs, the real thing is relatively easy.

I don't know if this has been covered earlier in the thread, so I'll write it anyway. Static line is not economic when flying a "large" turbine. Doing one pass per student at 4,000' with 4 minutes between is not going to happen with a Twin Otter. Conversely, for the small mom and pop guys like my operation, doing one load per student with two instructors isn't economic either. It ties up the airplane (C182), and I've never had the staff to make it happen if I'd wanted to.

My opinion is that the training method is influenced by what works best for the aircraft than it has to do with what's "best." In other words "follow the money." Whenever you're told "it's not about the money." You can be pretty darn sure that it's all about the money.

I started with IAD jumps, loved it, and certainly was cheaper than the AFF route...but: Like others have said, I've seen some ugly openings with unstable IAD students. Hanging off the brace of a C182, instead of simply letting go/dropping, they shove off, flipping them on their back, sometimes even upside down. That's no good when the PC + bridle is out there whipping around. My home DZ never had any incidents with IAD openings as far as I know, but I think it could happen.

I spent about five years dispatching SL, then we converted to IAD. The SL was PC assist, and I saw more scary stuff there then I ever have with IAD. I've never seen a PC hesitation with IAD, happened quite often with SL. That Velcro assist needs to be replaced every 5 or 10 jumps, otherwise it's useless. I had one SL student roll off backwards, and catch the PC bridle in his armpit, stopping the deployment. I remember being a SL student and watching my own PC from my back and head down thinking 'looks like it's working!' IAD is generally just a cleaner deployment. The PC is in the breeze and pulling within a fraction of a second of the student letting go of the airplane. Never had exposure to direct bag SL.

Another "problem" with SL as compared to IAD, is that the students generally are trained to pull a rip cord. They'll have to convert at some point. Either that, or the DZ has to maintain SL rigs with spring loaded PCs, and others set up for hand deployment. The other option would be switching PCs all the time. I have heard of a DZ considering doing PC assisted SL with hand deploy pilot chutes, but don't know if anyone's doing it. Even with that option, you have to pack either for hand deployment, or with the PC inside the container set up for SL. SL as compared to IAD is just a pain in the butt rigging wise.

With IAD, the student starts on the same configuration that he'll be jumping later, no transitions for him or the DZ.

The one thing that I see as being difficult with IAD on a BOC is the practice throws. By the time the student is locating his practice PC the bag is out of the container, and it's not rigid anymore. They just have to be very deliberate in locating the practice PC. Though, once they've done those PPCTs, the real thing is relatively easy.

I don't know if this has been covered earlier in the thread, so I'll write it anyway. Static line is not economic when flying a "large" turbine. Doing one pass per student at 4,000' with 4 minutes between is not going to happen with a Twin Otter. Conversely, for the small mom and pop guys like my operation, doing one load per student with two instructors isn't economic either. It ties up the airplane (C182), and I've never had the staff to make it happen if I'd wanted to.

My opinion is that the training method is influenced by what works best for the aircraft than it has to do with what's "best." In other words "follow the money." Whenever you're told "it's not about the money." You can be pretty darn sure that it's all about the money.

Martin

Martin, Up here in NEEEEbraska we have SL assist PCs that we also use has hand deployment PCs. IT works great and we don’t have any problems with the Velcro wearing out to fast. The only difference is that you have a soft strip of Velcro on your PC when packing it hand deployment. It does suck repacking every time you need something different, but it’s just a matter or opening the container and then reclosing the container. It is a pain, but not totally debilitating. PrCPs are the same as with IAD and we notice the same thing that the first practice pull seems to be easier.

Martin, Up here in NEEEEbraska we have SL assist PCs that we also use has hand deployment PCs. IT works great and we don’t have any problems with the Velcro wearing out to fast. The only difference is that you have a soft strip of Velcro on your PC when packing it hand deployment. It does suck repacking every time you need something different, but it’s just a matter or opening the container and then reclosing the container. It is a pain, but not totally debilitating. PrCPs are the same as with IAD and we notice the same thing that the first practice pull seems to be easier.

Taylor

What's argument against simply converting to IAD? Is it the "Outhouse Argument"? As in we've been doing it that way for 50 years...

The Wichita area made the change when there wasn't a separate rating, so no paperwork, additional ratings to earn, etc. A guy like Stokes could transition all the instructors and IEs over the course of a day or two. Though, don't tell Jay I said this, but the way he teaches placement and throw of the IAD is not a good idea.

We have IAD at our club and its still very much alive and kicking. (funny to watch people bicycle kick their way to deployment)

At our club its cheaper on paper but costs about the same cause of the failed HARTs and turns ect. The one downside it does have is we have a limited amount of student rigs and that plays a huge part into how much you will get to jump, the AFF students use the same rigs but then again you only need to deal with that 7 times during your progression.

But to the point of the costs involved that is a major reason why alot of our students are IAD.